Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6f6fcd54b-95llv Total loading time: 0.415 Render date: 2021-05-12T08:31:05.907Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: {}

Gender Inequality in Deliberation: Unpacking the Black Box of Interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2014

Abstract

When and why do women gain from increased descriptive representation in deliberating bodies? Using a large randomized experiment, and linking individual-level speech with assessments of speaker authority, we find that decision rules interact with the number of women in the group to shape the conversation dynamics and deliberative authority, an important form of influence. With majority rule and few women, women experience a negative balance of interruptions when speaking, and these women then lose influence in their own eyes and in others’. But when the group is assigned to unanimous rule, or when women are many, women experience a positive balance of interruptions, mitigating the deleterious effect of small numbers. Men do not experience this pattern. We draw implications for a type of representation that we call authoritative representation, and for democratic deliberation.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Anderson, Joel, and Honneth, Axel. 2005. “Autonomy, Vulnerability, Recognition, and Justice.” In Autonomy and the Challenges to Liberalism: New Essays, ed. Christman, John and Anderson, Joel. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Kristin J., and Leaper, Campbell. 1998. “Meta-Analyses of Gender Effects on Conversational Interruption: Who, What, When, Where and How.” Sex Roles 39(3-4): 222–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aries, Elizabeth. 1976. “Interaction Patterns and Themes of Male, Female, and Mixed Groups.” Small Group Behavior 7(1): 718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aries, Elizabeth, Gold, Conrad, and Weigel, Russell H.. 1983. “Dispositional and Situational Influences on Dominance Behavior in Small Groups.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44(4): 779–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, Robert F. 1970. Personality and Interpersonal Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Ban, Radu, and Rao, Vijayendra. 2009. “Is Deliberation Equitable? Evidence from Transcripts of Village Meetings in South India.” Policy Research Working Paper 4928. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Beck, Susan Abrams. 2001. “Acting as Women: The Effects and Limitations in Local Governance.” In The Impact of Women in Public Office, ed. Carroll, Susan J.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Beckwith, Karen, and Cowell-Meyers, Kimberly. 2007. “Sheer Numbers: Critical Representation Thresholds and Women’s Political Representation.” Perspectives on Politics 5(3): 553–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Elizabeth. 2012. “Speaking Up Is Hard to Do: Researchers Explain Why,” The Wall Street Journal, February 7, 2012. Available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577207020525853492.html (accessed March 19, 2013).
Besley, Timothy, Pande, Rohini, Lupin, Rahman, and Rao, Vijayendra. 2005. “Participatory Democracy in Action: Survey Evidence from South India.” Journal of the European Economic Association 3(2-3): 648–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickford, Susan. 1996. The Dissonance of Democracy: Listening, Conflict, and Citizenship. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bouas, Kelly S., and Komorita, S. S.. 1996. “Group Discussion and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22(11): 1144–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bryan, Frank M. 2004. Real Democracy: The New England Town Meeting and How It Works. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carli, Linda L. 1989. “Gender Differences in Interaction Style and Influence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56(4): 565–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carli, Linda L. 1990. “Gender, Language, and Influence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(5): 941–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Susan J. 2001. “Introduction.” In The Impact of Women in Public Office, ed. Carroll, Susan J.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 2003. “Deliberative Democratic Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 6: 307–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chattopadhyay, Raghabendra, and Duflo, Esther. 2004. “Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India.” Econometrica 72(5): 1409–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, Sarah, and Krook, Mona Lena. 2006. “Should Feminists Give Up on Critical Mass? A Contingent Yes.” Politics & Gender 2(4): 522–30.Google Scholar
Conover, Pamela Johnston, Searing, Donald D., and Crewe, Ivor M.. 2002. “The Deliberative Potential of Political Discussion.” British Journal of Political Science 32(1): 2162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowder-Meyer, Melody. 2010. Local Parties, Local Candidates, and Women’s Representation: How County Parties Affect Who Runs for and Wins Political Office. Ph.D. diss., Department of Politics, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Dahlerup, Drude. 2012. “Preface.” In The Impact of Gender Quotas, ed. Franceschet, Susan, Krook, Mona Lena, and Piscopo, Jennifer M.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Devine, Dennis J., Clayton, Laura, Dunford, Benjamin B., Seying, Rasmy, and Price, Jennifer. 2001. “Jury Decision Making: 45 Years of Empirical Research on Deliberating Groups.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 73(3): 622727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dovidio, John F., Brown, Clifford E., Heltman, Karen, Ellyson, Steve L., and Keating, Caroline F.. 1988. “Power Displays between Women and Men in Discussions of Gender-Linked Tasks: A Multi-Channel Study.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55(4): 580–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, Alice H., and Johnson, Blair T.. 1990. “Gender and Leadership Style: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 108(2): 233–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esterling, Kevin M., Fung, Archon, and Lee, Taeku. 2009. “How Much Disagreement Is Good for Democratic Deliberation? The California Speaks Health Care Reform Experiment.” Presented at the 2nd Annual West Coast Experimental Political Science Conference, Del Mar, CA, May 15.
Fay, Nicolas, Garrod, Simon, and Carletta, Jean. 2000. “Group Discussion as Interactive Dialogue or as Serial Monologue: The Influence of Group Size.” Psychological Science 11(6): 481–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, Richard L., and Lawless, Jennifer L.. 2011. “Gendered Perceptions and Political Candidacies: A Central Barrier to Women’s Equality in Electoral Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 55(1): 5973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschet, Susan, Krook, Mona Lena, and Piscopo, Jennifer M.. 2012. “Conceptualizing the Impact of Gender Quotas.” In The Impact of Gender Quotas, ed. Franceschet, Susan, Krook, Mona Lena, and Piscopo, Jennifer M.. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frohlich, Norman, and Oppenheimer, Joe A.. 1990. “Choosing Justice in Experimental Democracies with Production.” American Political Science Review 84(2): 461–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frohlich, Norman, and Oppenheimer, Joe A.. 1992. Choosing Justice: An Experimental Approach to Ethical Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fung, Archon. 2003. “Deliberation Where You Least Expect It: Citizen Participation in Government.” Connections (Fall): 3033.Google Scholar
Gastil, John, Pierre Deess, E., Weiser, Philip J., and Simmons, Cindy. 2010. The Jury and Democracy: How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gneezy, Uri, Leonard, Kenneth L., and List, John A.. 2009. “Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence from a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society.” Econometrica 77(5): 1637–64.Google Scholar
Greig, Fiona, and Bohnet, Iris. 2009. “Exploring Gendered Behavior in the Field with Experiments: Why Public Goods Are Provided by Women in a Nairobi Slum.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 70(1-2): 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society . Trans. McGarthy, Thomas. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Trans. Burger, T., with Lawrence, F.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1999. “Introduction.” Ratio Juris 12(4): 329–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannagan, Rebecca J., and Larimer, Christopher. 2011. “Out-Group Threat and Gender Balance in Policymaking Groups.” Presented at the 2nd European Conference on Politics and Gender, Central European University in Budapest, Hungary, January 13–15.
Hawkesworth, Mary. 2003. “Congressional Enactments of Race–Gender: Toward a Theory of Raced–Gendered Institutions.” American Political Science Review 97(4): 529–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Htun, Mala, and Laurel Weldon, S.. 2010. “When Do Governments Promote Women’s Rights? A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Sex Equity Policy.” Perspectives on Politics 8(1): 207–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Htun, Mala, and Laurel Weldon, S.. 2012. “The Civic Origins of Progressive Policy Change: Combating Violence against Women in Global Perspective, 1975–2005.” American Political Science Review 106(3): 548–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, Cassese, Erin, and Lizotte, Mary-Kate. 2008. “Gender, Public Opinion, and Political Reasoning.” In Political Women and American Democracy, ed. Wolbrecht, Christina, Beckwith, Karen, and Baldez, Lisa. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Macartan, Fearon, James D., and Weinstein, Jeremy M.. 2011. “Democratic Institutions and Collective Action Capacity: Results from a Field Experiment in Post-Conflict Liberia." Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in Seattle, WA, September 1–4.
Humphreys, Macartan, Masters, William A., and Sandbu, Martin E.. 2006. “Democratic Deliberations: Results from a Field Experiment in São Tomé and Príncipe.” World Politics 53(4): 583622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keel, Luke, and Tingley, Dustin. 2010. “A General Approach to Causal Mediation Analysis.” Psychological Methods 15(4): 309–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., Cook, Fay L., and Delli Carpini, Michael X.. 2009. Talking Together: Public Deliberation and Political Participation in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Michael Rabinder. 2008. “Descriptive Representation in the British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly.” In Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly, ed. Warren, Mark E. and Pearse, Hilary. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Cathryn. 1994. “Gender, Legitimate Authority, and Leader-Subordinate Conversations.” American Sociological Review 59(1): 122–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1977. “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women.” American Journal of Sociology 82(5): 965–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kathlene, Lyn. 1994. “Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The Interaction of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates.” American Political Science Review 88(3): 560–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanthak, Kristin, and Krause, George A.. 2010. “Valuing Diversity in Political Organizations: Gender and Token Minorities in the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Journal of Political Science 54(4): 839–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Martin F., and Miller, Charles E.. 1987. “Group Decision-Making and Normative versus Informational Influence: Effects of Type of Issue and Assigned Decision Rule.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53(2): 306–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karakowsky, Leonard, McBey, Kenneth, and Miller, Diane L.. 2004. “Gender, Perceived Competence, and Power Displays Examining Verbal Interruptions in a Group Context.” Small Group Research 35(4): 407–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karakowsky, Leonard, and Siegel, J. P.. 1999. “The Effects of Proportional Representation and Gender Orientation of the Task on Emergent Leadership Behavior in Mixed-Gender Work Groups.” Journal of Applied Psychology 84(4): 620–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Mendelberg, Tali. Forthcoming. The Silent Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Karpowitz, Christopher F. 2006. Having a Say: Public Hearings, Deliberation, and Democracy in America. Ph.D. diss., Department of Politics, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Karpowitz, Christopher F., Mendelberg, Tali, and Shaker, Lee. 2012. “Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation.” American Political Science Review 106(3): 533–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kollock, Peter, Blumstein, Philip, and Schwartz, Pepper. 1985. “Sex and Power in Interaction: Conversational Privileges and Duties.” American Sociological Review 50(1): 3446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krook, Mona Lena. 2008. “Quota Laws for Women in Politics: Implications for Feminist Practice.” Social Politics 15(3): 345–68.
Krook, Mona Lena. 2009. Quotas for Women in Politics: Gender and Candidate Selection Reform Worldwide. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Leaper, Campbell, and Ayres, Melanie M.. 2007. “A Meta-Analytic Review of Gender Variations in Adults’ Language Use: Talkativeness, Affiliative Speech, and Assertive Speech.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 11(4): 328–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Losada, Marcial, and Heaphy, Emily. 2004. “The Role of Positivity and Connectivity in the Performance of Business Teams: A Nonlinear Dynamics Model.” American Behavioral Scientist 47(6): 740–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macedo, Stephen. 1999. “Introduction.” In Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, ed. Macedo, Stephen. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Macedo, Stephen, ed. 2005. Democracy at Risk: How Political Choices Undermine Citizen Participation, and What We Can Do about It. Washington, DC: Brookings Press.Google Scholar
Maltz, Daniel, and Borker, Ruth. 1982. “A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication.” In Language and Social Identity, ed. Gumperz, John. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane J. 1983. Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane J. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’Journal of Politics 61(3): 628–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane J., Hartz-Karp, Janette, Amengual, Matthew, and Gastil, John. 2006. “Norms of Deliberation: An Inductive Study.” Journal of Public Deliberation 2(1): article 7.Google Scholar
Mattei, Laura R. Winsky. 1998. “Gender and Power in American Legislative Discourse.” Journal of Politics 60(2): 440–61.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali, Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Goedert, Nicholas. Forthcoming. “Does Descriptive Representation Facilitate Women’s Distinctive Voice? How Gender Composition and Decision Rules Affect Deliberation.” American Journal of Political Science.
Mendez, Jeanette M., and Osborn, Tracy. 2010. “Gender and the Perception of Knowledge in Political Discussion.” Political Research Quarterly 63(2): 269–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca M., and Williams, Kenneth C.. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulac, Anthony, Lundell, Torberg Louisa, and Bradac, James J.. 1986. “Male/female Language Differences and Attributional Consequences in a Public Speaking Situation: Toward an Explanation of the Gender-Linked Language Effect.” Communication Monographs 53(2): 116–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulac, Anthony, Wiemann, John M., Widenmann, Sally J., and Gibson, Toni W.. 1988. “Male/female Language Differences and Effects in Same-Sex and Mixed-Sex Dyads: The Gender-Linked Language Effect and Mutual Influence.” Communication Monographs 55(4): 315–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemeth, Charlan. 1977. “Interactions between Jurors as a Function of Majority vs. Unanimity Decision Rules.Journal of Applied Social Psychology 7(1): 3856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ng, Sik Hung, Brooke, Mark, and Dunne, Michael. 1995. “Interruption and Influence in Discussion Groups.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 14(4): 369–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pande, Rohini, and Ford, Deanna. 2011. Gender Quotas and Female Leadership: A Review. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
Pearson, Kathryn, and Dancey, Logan. 2011. “Elevating Women’s Voices in Congress: Speech Participation in the House of Representatives.” Political Research Quarterly 64(4): 910–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piliavin, Jane A., and Martin, Rachel R.. 1978. “The Effects of the Sex Composition of Groups on Style of Social Interaction.” Sex Roles 4(2): 281–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reingold, Beth. 2000. Representing Women: Sex, Gender, and Legislative Behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Reingold, Beth. 2008. “Women as Office Holders: Linking Descriptive and Substantive Representation.” In Political Women and American Democracy, ed. Wolbrecht, Christina, Beckwith, Karen, and Baldez, Lisa. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 1982. “Status in Groups: The Importance of Motivation.” American Sociological Review 47(1): 7688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 2001. “Gender, Status, and Leadership.” Journal of Social Issues 57(4): 637–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Johnson, Cathryn. 1990. “What Is the Relationship between Socioemotional Behavior and Status in Task Groups?American Journal of Sociology 95(5): 1189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L., Berger, Joseph, and Smith, LeRoy. 1985. “Nonverbal Cues and Status: An Expectation States Approach.” American Journal of Sociology 90(5): 955–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Smith-Lovin, Lynn. 1999. “The Gender System and Interaction.” Annual Review of Sociology 25: 191216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudman, Laurie A., and Glick, Peter. 2001. “Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes and Backlash toward Agentic Women.” Journal of Social Issues 57(4): 743–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Lynn M. 1997. “Against Deliberation.” Political Theory 25(3): 347–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidanius, Jim, and Pratto, Felicia. 1999. Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Brody, Charles. 1989. “Interruptions in Group Discussions: The Effects of Gender and Group Composition.” American Sociological Review 54(3): 424–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stromer-Galley, Jennifer. 2007. “Measuring Deliberation's Content: A Coding Scheme.” Journal of Public Deliberation 3(1): Article 12.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballatine Books.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 2009. “Framing and Face: The Relevance of the Presentation of Self to Linguistic Discourse Analysis.” Social Psychology Quarterly 72(4): 300–05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations. 1995. Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. The United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. Available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/decision.htm (accessed November 22, 2013).
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for the Advancement of Women. 2005. “Equal Participation of Women and Men in Decision-making Processes, with Particular Emphasis on Political Participation and Leadership.” Expert Group Meeting, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 24–27 October 2005. Available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/eql-men/ (accessed June 14, 2013).
Walsh, Katherine Cramer. 2007. Talking About Race: Community Dialogues and the Politics of Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wantchekon, Leonard. 2011. “Deliberative Electoral Campaigns and Transition from Clientelism: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Benin.” Department of Politics, Princeton University Working Paper.
Wood, Wendy, and Karten, Stephen J.. 1986. “Sex Differences in Interaction Style as a Product of Perceived Sex Differences in Competence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(2): 341–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Iris M. 1996. “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy.” In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, ed. Benhabib, Seyla. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris M. 2001. “Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy.” Political Theory 29(5): 670–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H., and West, Candace. 1975. “Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation.” In Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, eds. Thorne, Barrie and Henley, Nancy. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Mendelberg et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Mendelberg et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 3 MB

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Gender Inequality in Deliberation: Unpacking the Black Box of Interaction
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Gender Inequality in Deliberation: Unpacking the Black Box of Interaction
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Gender Inequality in Deliberation: Unpacking the Black Box of Interaction
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *